| Great Power Spain | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 15 2014, 03:16 AM (648 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 15 2014, 03:16 AM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
How could Spain attain or keep the status of a Great Power analogous to Italy by 1914? This would entail a population of ~30-35 million, a GDP of $60 billion, a fleet of 12+ predreadnoughts and commensurate diplomatic status. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 15 2014, 03:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Avoiding an entanglement with the United States is a necessary condition. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 15 2014, 06:25 PM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The big sticking point there would be Cuba; if it is lost or sold (very, very difficult politically) in the mid 19th century, there is enough time to recover. The Peninsular War really damaged Spain. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 15 2014, 08:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Selling it wouldn't be an option. It might be lost, but it is hard to see that happening earlier in the century without foreign intervention, which would cause problems of its own. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 16 2014, 03:04 AM Post #5 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
In that case, something along the following lines would be interesting: - Steadier and better recovery from the Peninsular war. - Cuban independence rumblings in the 20s and 30s result in effective independence in 1836. - Spain attempts to reconquer Cuba, but runs into US intervention due to an incident of some sort. - Spain is defeated in a short, sharp conflict, being distracted due to the First Carlist War. - Espartero holds onto power in Spain, with the reign of Isabella II (1833-1879) gradually becoming a progressive era of growth and stability for Spain. - She is succeeded by Alfonso XII (1879-1910) who oversees a similar period of peace and stability. - The Spanish population is 15.5 million in 1850, 17.5 million in 1860, 19 million in 1870, 21 million in 1880, 23 million in 1890, 25 million in 1900 and around 27 million in 1914. - GDP reaches 23 million in 1860, 26 million in 1870, 35 million in 1880, 40 million in 1890, 48 million in 1900 and 58 billion in 1914. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 16 2014, 03:51 PM Post #6 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That would probably lead to a US annexation of Cuba. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 16 2014, 06:55 PM Post #7 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That is what I am thinking - having it occur early enough to recover from. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 16 2014, 09:21 PM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That is a fairly big jump in population growth, with the 1914 numbers not being reached until the end of World War II in our timeline. I don't really see how that could be sustained. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 17 2014, 02:55 AM Post #9 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It is based on a different starting point almost 80 years prior to 1914. In that time, Spain historically atrophied, suffered protracted unrest, revolution, the Long Depression and drifted. Here, it is stable, experiences steady growth and gets an earlier industrial start. Italy went from 24 million to 37 million in the same period. Historical: 1850: 14.894 1860: 15.642 1870: 16.201 1880: 16.859 1890: 17.757 1900: 18.566 1910: 19.858 1914: 20.398 |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 21 2014, 11:30 AM Post #10 |
|
And of course Italy's numbers would have been even higher had better economic policies been enacted during the latter part of the 1800s to prevent the migration of millions of Italians. And had the French vine disease not occurred, it is also likely that southern Italian economy would have been much stronger heading into the turn of the century, again, with a much higher population. I could easily envisage an Italian population of up to 45 million by the start of the Great War. Spain, on the other hand; I think you have to go back a long ways to make them a great power. The massive influx of gold from the Americas wreaked havoc on their economy with too much gold chasing too little goods. At the same time, after the damage is done, then you have many of the Spanish colonies declaring independence making things even worse still. The roots of Spanish decline go all the way back to the 1500s and I really think you have to start there to make it happen. Or...perhaps more accurately...it would be much easier to make it happen. Edited by John, Jan 21 2014, 11:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 21 2014, 09:02 PM Post #11 |
|
Its funny you mention this; just today in my one class (Henry VIII to Cromwell) my prof mentioned that the influx of specifically silver into Spain caused inflation right across Europe, as they began buying up good from everywhere. The interesting question is how it might have been channeled into effective use. Obviously the import of bullion itself is desirable, if only to increase the circulation of money in the economy, but is there some way to negate the damaging effects? |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 21 2014, 09:55 PM Post #12 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I'm not really a big fan of manipulating population growths in AH timelines or games. There is some justification for tweaking immigration patterns and accounting for more or less severe losses in wars, but on a certain level, it often comes down to declaring by fiat that husbands and wives simply have more children. The reverse is also not usually taken into account. Birth rates tend to drop as GDP/capita increases. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 21 2014, 11:22 PM Post #13 |
|
I don't really think so. The bottom line is that gold has limited uses during this time period and its worth has a much greater connection to the ratio of gold to the goods available to be purchased. You can have as much gold as you want, but if you don't have the capacity to produce goods or the skills and talent necessary to expand production, inflation is inevitable. I mean, at this point, gold plays no more different a role than paper money. It has value because people will accept it in trade. Say we have two people in a boat. One guy has an orange he is willing to sell. The other guy has a dollar. The value of the orange is probably going to be one dollar in that particular economy. But, if you have three people in the boat and the third guy has two dollars, guess what the value is now. The same is true whether we're talking about paper money or gold bars. So, yes, there is a point at which you can actually have too much gold floating around in your economy (if that is used as, or to back, your money supply). |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 21 2014, 11:28 PM Post #14 |
|
Well, that is not quite the case with Italy. Millions of people left that country and migrated primarily to the Americas. According to Wikipedia, around 9 million people left Italy between the 1860s and 1940s. There is plenty of opportunity to have kept even half the population given simple divergences from historical events. Depending on what those are, I really believe that Italy could have been nearing 45 million people by 1914. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 22 2014, 03:38 AM Post #15 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Population growth can be affected by wars, droughts, natural disasters, plagues and famines and migration, but there is also a certain level of increase that comes with economic growth and industrialization. This eventually slows and tapers off, but the generation coming out of the initial boost still have children who in turn have children. In the 19th century, there are several interesting cases, namely the demographic decline of France, the German and British booms, the Irish bubble and diaspora, Italy and Spain France 1820-1830: + 6% 1830-1840: + 4.58% 1840-1850: + 3.99% 1850-1860: + 2.55% 1860-1870: + 2.97% 1870-1880: + 1.55% 1880-1890: + 2.42% 1890-1900: + 1.44% The 1870s and 1890s were particularly bad decades for various reasons. Total increase of around 9 million over 80 years. France did not have any significant waves of migration in this time. Italy 1820-1830: + 6.21% 1830-1840: + 6.22% 1840-1850: + 6.22% 1850-1860: + 6.22% 1860-1870: + 6.48% 1870-1880: + 5.57% 1880-1890: + 6.84% 1890-1900: + 5.85% The consistency of the growth level reflects the nature of Italy as a generally rural society. Spain 1820-1830: + 6.43% 1830-1840: + 6.43% 1840-1850: + 6.22% 1850-1860: + 4.78% 1860-1870: + 3.45% 1870-1880: + 3.9% 1880-1890: + 5.06% 1890-1900: + 4.36% The decline between 1860 and 1880 is quite clear. Ireland 1820-1830: + 9.28% 1830-1840: + 6.25% 1840-1850: - 21.39% 1850-1860: - 18.16% 1860-1870: - 7.42% 1870-1880: - 4.15% 1880-1890: - 10.28% 1890-1900: - 5.57% Hello, Potato Famine. Ireland had grown beyond its natural/preindustrial carrying capacity, but its decline is not preordained to occur in the same way. Britain 1820-1830: + 12.01% 1830-1840: + 9.74% 1840-1850: + 1.6% 1850-1860: + 5.91% 1860-1870: + 8% 1870-1880: + 9.31% 1880-1890: + 7.64% 1890-1900: + 8.92% An industrialized society grew at a strong rate even with high rates of migration to the colonies. The mid century anomaly is interesting. Germany 1820-1830: + 11.2% 1830-1840: + 9.9% 1840-1850: + 7.76% 1850-1860: + 6.39% 1860-1870: + 8.11% 1870-1880: + 9.81% 1880-1890: + 8.63% 1890-1900: + 12.47% |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jan 27 2014, 03:30 AM Post #16 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 09:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 27 2014, 04:17 AM Post #17 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Such a Spain would be very different indeed. However, Cuba serves as a spark for conflict with the USA that is extremely likely to ignite. If Cuba is lost, then there will be significant blowback for Spain both domestically and internationally and potentially leads to the loss of other colonies in the process. If it occurs early and in an isolated context, then there is time to recover. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 27 2014, 04:36 AM Post #18 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I don't know enough about the beginnings of Cuban nationalism to judge. However, I will say this. Often in AH people make the mistake of thinking that preempting something is enough to put it to rest forever. History suggests this is seldom the case. One common example is Ireland and Irish Home Rule: it probably would have been enough to settle the Irish question for decades and keep the whole island in the Union, but it would certainly not end Irish nationalism. There is also the issue of unforeseen consequences, which are, by definition, impossible to account for. These are the "unknown unknowns" a certain man once spoke of. In the Irish case, one of these is the assumption that the Irish do not use their newfound home rule to organize further and eventually withdraw, as the Irish Free State did in @. What would be required is a Cuba that has significant autonomy/liberties, is not alienated by Madrid, and desires to remain within the Spanish Empire. That would be very difficult to achieve. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 27 2014, 04:43 AM Post #19 |
|
Another part of this equation could be a weaker United States, perhaps one that did not survive the Civil War fully intact. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 27 2014, 04:56 AM Post #20 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The likelihood of the ideal situation re: keeping Cuba to occur for Spain is very, very small. Domestic Spanish politics make an autonomous Cuba very difficult. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 27 2014, 05:08 AM Post #21 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Once the situation starts to involve military pacification, things get very dicey very quick. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 9 2015, 02:58 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
I think a more interesting question could be. What if France's demographic decline was less severe? What if growth had stabilized at roughly 2/3rds the German rate? Given the higher starting population the result is an incomparably stronger and more confident France. Higher population could have unlocked the necessary creative and laboral manpower to break the French economic deadlock of the late long 19th century. What would be the necessary changes to accomodate this stabilization in the growth rate? Personally I think the July Monarchy+Second French Republic was probably the root cause of France's demographic ills. Both of these being born out of the accession of Charles X to the throne. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 10 2015, 12:14 PM Post #23 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The issues of French demography were set in place prior to that, going back to changes of law under Bonaparte, the lost opportunities from 25+ years of war and a lot of internal issues. The drop off was already come from 1820 and pronounced by 1830. There was not a great outflow to any colonies or the Americas in the manner of other countries. To change French demography in the mid-late 19th century, we need to go back to 1750 at the latest. It isn't as clear cut as Spain. With minor nudges and changes, an extra 5-6 million people can found, bringing the level to ~45 million by 1914. To get it to 50 million or the 2/3rds level needs more change. My general principle is that the earlier a change occurs, the more pronounced the effects over time. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 10 2015, 02:49 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
If France could keep the level near the 1820-1830 level, around 6%, that would help it greatly already. In my opinion that could be maintained with a more stable political regime and perhaps a more successful rollback of Napoleon's policies. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |







8:39 AM Jul 11